The following history has been written to give the people of Greenock and other towns in Britain an accurate though brief statement of the recent scandalously lax and unscrupulous method of supervising the slaughter-house of Greenock; the events that led up to the final exposure; the treatment meted out to Mr. James Houston; and the duty that yet devolves upon the citizens of finding work for this genuine man who by his efforts has done much to rid the community of a most pernicious traffic in unwholesome flesh.

As the whole narrative circles round the person of
Mr. Houston, it is but appropriate to give the reader one or
two facts in connection with him, so that a clear
comprehension of the events as they arise may be possible.

In the employment of R. Rasmsay & and Co., Ltd., Hide and
Skin Brokers, Glasgow, for 31 years, Mr. Houston spent the
last 18 at the Greenock Slaughter-House. Whilst there from day
to day he witnessed the violation of the law by the
cow-butchers, who were regularly engaged in selling
diseased meat and vile sausages for large profits,
although they well knew that the poor who had to purchase
these articles were liable to that deadliest of working-class
maladies -- consumption.

This slaughter-house is owned by the Town Council, and is
managed by a committee which, prior to April, 1907, employed a
Mr. Ballantine to inspect, amongst other duties, all carcases
taken out of the premises. Every carcase showing traces of
disease ought to have been detained by him until thoroughly
examined by a competent veterinary surgeon, Mr. Pottie. Upon
the shoulders of the latter rested the responsibility of
deciding whether an animal was or was not fit for human
food. All carcases condemned by him were taken to a
neighbouring chemical work, where they could be boiled down
and made into several preparations.

On frequent occasions Mr. Houston noticed that Inspector
Ballantine let out diseased cows without calling in the
services of the veterinary surgeon. The entrails of these bad
carcases were sent over to the chemical works along with
carcases wholly condemned. The manager permitted this to go on
for some time, but at last he refused to accept entrails
unless in conjunction with the accompanying carcases, as in
themselves they were of very little use to him. But the
Inspector had to get rid of them somehow. Can you imagine
what he did?

He actually sent these diseased entrails to Glasgow in bags
labelled "Tripe"! Mr. Houston, now tortured by the thought
that the poor of Glasgow were being poisoned instead of
being
fed, at length wrote to the Glasgow Sanitary authorities, telling
them where these "tripe" bags were to be found. They were found in the place specified in the letter sent. Thereupon Glasgow's head Meat Inspector, Mr. Trotter, visited Greenock to complain about this base system of deceiving the people of Glasgow, and from that date the contemptible business ceased. However, to Houston's chagrin, the Council made no attempt to ferret the matter to the bottom and root out the pernicious traffic -- the smuggling out of diseased carcases went on as merrily as before.

Still some other means then, had to be devised to dispose of
the entrails that could no longer he packed off to Glasgow as
"tripe". They were now burned in the slaughter-house
fire. Unfortunately for the culprits, the smell of the burning
entrails was too unlike the sweet odour of summer's blossom to
please the occupants of houses in the neighbourhood, and thus
again for the third time had the conspirators to resort to
other devices to evade the keen eye of the Sanitary Inspector.

The cow-fleshers in unison clamoured for the purchase of a digester
by all in the trade, so that all carcases and entrails could be boiled down. The plea advanced by these innocents was the profit that would accrue from the bones, fat, etc., left over after the boiling process had been completed. Naturally, these "practical" business men did not deem it necessary to inform their unsuspecting colleagues that they were specially interested in the disappearance of the tell-tale entrails, discovery of which might have applied the closure to their malicious trade and inflated profits.

As may be observed from the above remarks, the charges
specified by me are not brought to the door of all butchers in
Greenock, but solely to that of those almost exclusively
dealing in cow-flesh. And it is to be particularly noted that
of all bovines used for human food cows are most frequently
found suffering from that deadly disease -- tuberculosis. This
malady, being more commonly found amongst cows, placed greater
temptation in the way of the cow-fleshers who did not fail to
make the best of their opportunities.

They were remarkably fortunate, besides, because Bailie
Andrew, smart lawyer though he be, exercised the utmost laxity
whilst so long Convener of the Slaughter-House Committee.
This gentleman, be it carefully noted, visited the premises
only seven or eight times during his long term of
office. Could you, gentle reader, conceive of a better
opportunity offered to those anxious to practise
double-dealing ?

And bear in mind that it was this smart gentleman who did
everything possible to cover up the misdeeds of the
cow-fleshers whilst doing his utmost to foil the efforts made
by Houston to save the people from peril. But more of
him hereafter.

In course of time the agitation for the digester culminated
successfully, and the agitators were now able with easy minds
to transform those troublesome entrails. So lax thereafter
became the inspection of carcases at the slaughter-house that
for years Greenock became the dumping ground for old dead and
dying cows within a radius of twenty miles. If a cow turned
sick and showed signs of dying then off to Greenock was it
sent, there to be killed and sold as wholesome food! Even
cows have been carted from Paisley to be slaughtered and sent
out to adorn the tables of the working-class of Greenock; and
many a time have aninials died going to or from the station
and have had to be carted to the slaughter-house. The usual
price for cows in this condition was 17/6, and for their hides
Houston frequently paid from 23/- to 25/-. On one occasion a
flesher got ten cows for £10; but on expressing
the opinion that this charge was excessive, he got another
thrown into the bargain! We can very well imagine the highly
nutritive food these animals would supply!

The following throws a search-light on the insatiable rapacity
of the unscrupulous gang who were determined to make money by
fair means or foul. Many of the cows killed were in calf. The
calves were taken away from the dead carcases of their mothers
and stored away out of sight, until sent out with their
mothers or sold separately for 1/- or 1/6. Houston saw
hundreds of such calves sold for human food. Those without
hair were simply boiled down unskinned to make potted head;
those with hair were skinned so that the skins might realise
4d.! Compare this price with the 3/10 paid for the skins of
new-born calves!

A still more shocking method of making "profit" was
resorted to by a few who no doubt posed as philanthropists for
selling to the people "cheap" sausages. All the filth of the
slaughter-house was put into a large bucket stowed away in a
dark corner until sold for the feeding of pigs. Many a time
Houston saw the contents taken to
fleshers to make potted head and cheap sausages! One man especially told him that as he passed the shop of a butcher on his way home with this feeding for his pigs, the latter would stop him to select the best portions to cater for the wants of the people. This divulges the secret of his ability to sell sausages at 3d. per lb.! Houston warned the Inspector that these despicable practices ought to be put a stop to, but he seemed utterly regardless of his duty to the people.

Convinced that the continued sale of putrid flesh was bound
to undermine the constitutions of those upon whom it was being
imposed, Houston nevertheless carried out in a successful manner
an experiment which conclusively proved the relationship that
exists between bovine tuberculosis and human consumption. He
took two young healthy cats into his office and with the utmost
care fed and tended them until they grew sleek and fat. He
thereupon began to feed one of them solely on tuberculous flesh
similar to that sold for food. Very soon it began to look sickly,
become thin, and cast its hair. At last it could scarcely stand
on its legs, so weak aud puny did it become. At this stage Mr.
Ballantine consented to kill it, and make a post-mortem examination of its remains; and just as expected, it was found that the
lungs were completely rotten, and its digestive organs had almost
gone. Tuberculosis had been doing its deadly work. Mr. Houston hinted that he intended to show the carcase to to the veterinary surgeon as an object lesson, and for that purpose he covered it up, and left it in his office till the vet's arrival. When he did arrive, the body was gone. The reader, no doubt, could guess who had been at the bottom of this theft of the cat's body. Mr. McFarlane, the vet. at that time, felt sorry that he had not seen it, as he intended to base on it an address to be delivered before one of the Meat Inspectors' Conferences.

Haunted more than ever now by the thought that the poor were
not only being mercilessly cheated and defrauded, but also were
threatened by consumption, Houston cautiously dropped hints here
and there, where he thought they would be effective and lead to
an inquiry or a stricter supervision of the slaughter-house. By
this proccss rumours did actually circulate about town, and more
than once the Health Committee made investigations, but failed
to find specific information. Houston at this time thought it inadvisable to make a statement of what he saw going on, lest he
might lose his job. That, of course, is the position of the wage
slave who has a wife and family to maintain.

At length appeared Upton Sinclair's "Jungle", containing a
graphic account of the Tinned Beef factories of Chicago. Fired
now with an intensified desire to expose the still grosser evils of
the beef trade of Greenock, he determined to speak out against
the next irregularity that might come under his notice. He had not long to wait. On August 31st, and on September 4th, 1906, two carcases, bad with tuberculosis, were let out. He at once informed Ballantine that he was going to report to the Sanitary Inspector. The same night he called at Mr. Devine's house, and let him know what had been going on for years. That gentleman rubbed his eyes on hearing this astounding news, but, nevertheless, reported it to the Health Committee.

The latter would have dropped the matter had not Houston
made clear to Mr. Devine and ex-Bailie Baxter, convener of the
Health Committee, that he would communicate with the Local
Government Board if the Council failed to do its duty in the
matter. It must in justice be here stated that these two gentlemen
were as anxious as Houston to get the matter probed to the bottom, but were, till this moment, thwarted by the obstinacy of
their colleagues. Now that they had to move in the matter, the
Town Council appointed a Committee of Inquiry.

In due course Houston received a request from the Town Clerk
to give his evidence before this Committee. This he rightly
refused to do unless all witnesses were summoned, put on
oath, and gave evidence in public; for the Committee sat in
private, and allowed voluntary witnesses to appear and give
evidence without oath. Of course, the Committee was appointed
unwillingly, and was itself unwilling to sift the case to the
bottom. Houston clearly saw that the procedure adopted by the
Committee reduced its efforts to a farce, and that whatever he
said would have no weight at all. What he foresaw actually
happened, and fully justified his refusal to countenance the
Committee by his presence.

All who could be relied upon to deny Houson's allegations, and
to hush the matter up by telling lies were induced to give
evidence; all others were discouraged. In fact, Mr. Ballantine
was permitted to select his own witnesses, and naturally chose
three operatives, who worked under his charge, were
subservient to him, and were willing to state whatever he
wished. Here is the proof. On the day prior to their giving
evidence they were taken to the Town Clerk's office, and
drilled up in the questions likely to be put to them, and the
replies expected from them. Immediately after the inquiry, one
of the three admitted he had deliberately told lies, as
he was not under oath, and confessed that his reward was
half-a-crown. This suffices to confute the Town Clerk, who had
written Houston that evidence would be taken on oath.

Contrast the above with the fact that one man was actually
told he was not asked to give evidence because he was sure to
tell the truth. What a happy state of affairs!

But the following series of facts proves up to the hilt that
Houston was correct when he asserted that the meat inspection
was extremely lax, and the Inquiry an unscrupulous
attempt to cover up the corruption disclosed by him.

During the first eight months of 1906 the total nunber of
carcases condemned was 46, or an average of less than 6 per
month. During the months of September, October, and November,
immediately after Houston had complained to the Sanitary
Inspector, and whilst the Committee of Inquiry was
investigating,
the number rose to 53, or an average of almost 18 per month.
In other words, the number per month was actually trebled.

However, for the next three months -- December, January,
and February, 1907 -- the number fell to 27, or an average of 8.
This sudden decrease resulted from a hint dropped by a friend of
the cow-dealers on the Inqiry Committee, who always hastened
to the Slaughter-House after each sitting to acquaint his friends
of the day's proceedings. As the consequence of this hint, it
soon got noised abroad that the Committee's Report was going to
exonerate Mr. Ballantine and the cow-dealers, and to prove that
Houston was entirely wrong in his assertions. Even a letter on
this aspect of affairs appeared in the Telegraph.

On getting the hint from a "friend at Court", Mr. Ballantine
returned to his old practices in December, with the result already
stated. Houston, observing the turn events now took, kept a strict watch on all diseased animals let out during these three
months, and found that 27 were let pass. Had these been condemned the total would have been 54 instead of the 27 actually condemned, thus raising the number to a level similar to that for the three preceding months.

Probably the most clinching argument in support of Mr.
Houston's position is the return for the September-November
period during the preceding nine years:- 15, 12, 13, 16, 15, 14,
11, 10, and 23. All these figures fall far short of 53.

Why this remarkable increase during the early stages of the
Inquiry, if all was fair and above-board? It would take a better
lawyer than Bailie Andrew to explain away that sudden leap.

During the November Election (1907) ex-Bailie Baxter stated
in public that, although the cows now admitted to the slaughter-
house were much superior to those admitted before, more condemnations took place on some days than on any average month for the last ten years.

Had the Committee been conscientious in its work, what
conclusion could it alone have come to? What conclusion have
you come to, my level-headed reader? Surely none other than
that Houston was entirely right in his hints and manly
statements?

And yet here is the Report issued by the Committee, and
presented to the Corporation on 19th February, after having met
once or twice in November, and then not again till 21st January:

"As the result of their investigations, the Committee (Dean of Guild Baxter dissenting) find that the charge alleged to have been made by Mr. Houston has not been substantiated, and beg to report accordingly."

Our lawyer friend, Bailie Andrew, in moving the Report, said
the Committee were justified in carrying on their
investigations privately, that Houston in an apology to a
certain flesher had
practically withdrawn his statements, that Houston was actuated
by malicious motives, and that the longer the Committee "sat
prosecuting investigations, it became more evident that they were
pursuing a shadow instead of a charge".

As Bailie Andrew, like a cute lawyer, made the best of
Houston's apology to a certain flesher, and has since tried to
assert and
hint that he apologised for the charge made by him to Mr. Devine
on 4th September, so that his own actions and conclusions in connection with the Inquiry might be justified, an explanation of
what led up to the apology is necessary.

Immediately after the charge made on 4th September, Houston
was set upon by some of the fleshers at the
slaughter-house. The argument naturally became heated, and
angry words were exchanged. Houston in his anger made
statements which were perfectly true, but which could not be
supported by other witnesses. His opponents seized their
opportunity and sent him a lawyer's letter demanding an
immediate apology or proceedings would be taken against him
for libel. Not wishing to lose trade or job, he wrote the
following apology:--

11 Dempster Street,
Greenock,

10th October, 1906.

Mr. R. MURRAY.
Dear Sir,--With reference to the statements which have been in circulation that I have made certain imputations, and used threats against certain members of the Association, or made complaints regarding the management and supervision at the slaughter-house, I beg to state that such is not the case, either directly or indirectly have I done so (except on one occasion on 4th September last, I admit I complained to Mr. Devine.) I admit I may, in the heat of the argument, have used expressions towards certain members which in my calmer moments I would not have done. And if in doing so I have reflected upon the character or business of any of them, I withdraw the expressions, and regret that they should have caused the present feeling to arise between us. I am desirous that all such feeling should be removed, and am open to renew my business relations with them in the same friendly spirit as formerly existed.--I am, yours
respectfully,

(Signed) JAMES HOUSTON

Here is what Houston says in the Greenock Telegraph, 20th
December, 1906, anent this apology when used against him in a
treacherous manner at the Private Inquiry, made public of course
when anything against Houston could be raised:--

"Sir,--In answer to 'Anxious Enquirer' as to me sending a letter of apology to the Committee of Inquiry in connection with the slaughter-house, it is absolutely untrue; I never sent any letter to said Committee, and also, this is the first and only letter I have written or sent to any newspaper on the above subject. --I am, yours,

JAMES HOUSTON

One can easily understand the eagerness of Lawyer Andrew
to catch at anything which would tell against Houston and thus
enable him to clear his friends the cow-fleshers. He was responsible for the holding of the Inquiry in private, and he was responsible for the printing of only one copy of the evidence gathered. This copy was supposed to lie in the Town Clerk's office for the use of all the Councillors, but was found to be lying at Bailie Andrew's office. Why this hiding of the evidence? Because the whole business was meant to be a fiasco, and everything was intended to go on as before, after Houston had been thoroughly discredited.

Mr. Mitchell moved as an amendment to the adoption of the
Report the following :--"That the evidence be printed and
circulated among the members of the Corporation, and that
consideration of the present Report be deferred till a future
meeting". Here is what he said. "The Inquiry was a mockery
and a sham." "The evidence did not agree at all with the
verdict of the Committee." Mr. McCallum, in seconding him,
said--"If the report was printed and circulated among the
members of the Corporation, they might come to a different
conclusion from the members of the sub-committee."

Dean of Guild Baxter, in supporting them, stated--"It was a
fact that irregularities had been found".

Despite statements such as these, and the knowledge of the
entrails being sent to Glasgow and of the diseased carcase
which had been seized in a shop in Port-Glasgow unattended by
a prosecution, the Report was adopted by 16 votes to 7. It is
but fair to the people to let them know exactly those who
voted for the Report, so that they may give these estimable
gentlemen repose from public office when next they seek
re-election. They are as follows:--Provost Denholm, Bailies
Andrew, Williamson, Bailey, Bennett, and Shankland; Treasurer
Brown; Messrs. McInnes, MacOnie, Robinson, Taylor, Smith,
Forbes, Arch. Brown, Shearer and Swan.

Alas for Bailie Andrew! But four days after his
masterly defence of corruption -- on 23rd February --
Mr. Devine seized a
very badly diseased carcase in a shop, and afterwards found the
entrails, simply putrid, in the digester at the slaughter-house.
He consulted Dr. Cook, who, after examination, admitted that
this was the worst case he had ever seen. No prosecution followed this seizure, although Bailie Andrew had all along been
loudly asserting that he would at once take action if a specific
case were brought under his notice. When challenged by Houston why he did not prosecute in this case he stated that he could not; because two small parts of the entrails were amissing! A weighty reason, forsooth! The case was clearly one for prosecution, since the regulations of the Local Government Board clearly point out that Inspectors can seize carcases from which "pleura" has been cut away. In this case it was cut off both sides. And yet there was no prosecution, despite the confession of the butcher implicated.

How anxious Bailie Andrew was to hush up this "affair"
is evidenced by his motion in the Council on 19th March, over
which he presided in the absence of the Provost, to adopt the
Law and Finance Committee minutes, containing Dr. Cook's
report on the slaughter-house and the resignation of
Mr. Ballantine, who meantime had been requested to do so.

Again Mr. Mitchell came to the fore by honourably demanding
that the Corporation apply to the Local Government Board to
institute a special inquiry into the alleged irregularities at
the slaughter-house in connection with the disposal of unsound
carcases. Had Bailie Andrew actually wished to get light on
the subject, would he have been afraid of such a sensible
proposal? Would he not have withdrawn his motion and let the
amendment be carried? If he were a disinterested party, would
he not have gladly embraced this opportunity of proving or
disproving the ominous whispers that were now public property?

As might be expected, he pressed his resolution, which was
carried by 16 votes to 7. Here are those who stand
honoured on this occasion:-- Bailies Williamson and
Lemmon; Messrs. McCallum, McMillan, A. M. Chalmers, Dunn and
Mitchell.

These gentlemen, to their credit, were so bent on having an
impartial investigation, that they at once petitioned the
Local Government Board to institute an inquiry. This was
immediately done, and on 2nd April Dr. Dittmar arrived from
Edinburgh to see and find out what he could. What an
irrefutable proof of the allegations made by Houston!

On 9th April he issued his report. What a contrast with that
issued by the Committee of Inquiry! In a day or two an utter stranger discovered more than the Committee did in five months! The figures quoted above were taken from this Report, which would have been here reprinted had space permitted. However, here are two samples of what is contained therein:--

"The circumstances narrated above appear to me to warrant the conclusion that recently there has been excessive laxity in the
methods of meat inspection at the Greenock slaughter~house. No
sooner was attention more or less publicly directed to the matter
than the number of condemnations increased, to be reduced when
public suspicion seemed to be allayed. As soon, however, as a carcase extensively affected with tuberculosis had been seized in
the town by the Sanitary Inspector (one that had admittedly been
passed at the Slaughter-house) the vigilance observed there seems
to have increased again, as is shown by the number of carcases
condemned during March. But the figures for the ten years 1897-1906 show, I think, more conclusively than any inquiry could now do, that not only recently, but for years past, the inspection of meat at the public slaughter-house in Greenock has been inadequate."

Read carefully this second extract:--

"In the year 1904, 2007 bovine carcases, or 4.62 per cent. of
the total number of cattle slaughtered, were wholly and partially
condemned as unfit for human food by the officials responsible for
meat inspection in the public slaughter-house of Glasgow. During
1905 the percentage of bovine carcases wholly and partially condemned on account of tuberculosis in the Glasgow slaughter-house was 5.13. Compare these facts with facts for Greenock! Only home animals are slaughtered in Greenock, and I am afraid that a considerable proportion of these are cows. During eight of the ten years -- 1897-1906 inclusive -- less than one per cent. of the carcases were condemned for all causes! Comment is needless. The conclusion to be drawn from the figures seems to be that the inspection of carcases at Greenock slaughter-house has been extremely lax during the last ten years."

Could evidence more conclusive be brought forward than is
given expression to in the passages just quoted? Could
indictment be stronger?

The Doctor, in his concluding remarks, suggests that a
fully-qualified inspector of meat, aided by an assistant,
should be engaged to supervise the slaughter-house. From
April, since the
appointment of the new inspector, the number of condemnations has risen very rapidly. But how long will this last seeing that Houston has been driven out of his job and that Mr. Banks, the cow-flesher, though defeated in the Fourth Ward at the November election last (1907), was appointed by the Town Council to fill a vacancy in the Fifth over the head of the defeated candidate for that Ward?

So long as profit can be made out of the sale of diseased
carcases, just so long shall these be sold. This is just as
true as the
statement so persistently uttered by those of us who are Social
Democrats, that so long as the present class ownership of the factories, ships, mines, land, etc., lasts, just so long shall the working class be robbed of at least two-thirds of the wealth they produce.

As Social Democracy is the only organisation of industry able
to stop this robbery, so Municipal supply of beef, provisions, and
milk will alone lead to the ending of this capitalist infamy of
adulteration. If the people of Greenock are wise, they will bestir
themselves and never rest till the beef and other food-stuffs are sold for the benefit of the consumers and not for the enrichment of a
few privileged merchants. If a Municipal slaughter-house, why not Municipal cattle and Municipal flesher-shops?

Here is a prosecution, to prove that with all the changes at
the slaughter-house the same old selling of bad flesh goes on as
cheerily as ever. On 6th January, 1908, John Gordon, 61 Vennel,
was fined £10 or 30 days for having in his possession on 5th
December the carcase of a calf unfit for human food. It is well
known that only once in a while are such irregularities discovered.
We can therefore, with safety, conclude that the end of corruption has not arrived, and will not come until the Municipality
undertake the supply of wholesome food for the people. This
can only be thoroughly accomplished when the agriculture of
the country is organised by the nation acting through the County
Councils. Then the counties can rear healthy animals, which shall be slaughtered and sold by the Town Councils. That is quite practical, and can be accomplished when the people are alive to their best financial and physical interests, and are determined to dispense with the public services of their "Bailie Andrews". This exposure of the Beef Scandal of Greenock will have been useless unless it has added another to the many apparent facts of everyday life, proving that only when property is owned by the people and used by the people to create those things necessary for life and happiness, shall we have swept away for ever poverty, adulteration, and the multitude of attendant evils of Capitalism. The only hope of the masses of mankind lies in Socialism. Individual initiative and incentive in the beef trade are bad for the people; social initiative and incentive alone make for justice.

We cannot close without further reference to the hero of this
tragedy, Mr. Houston, who has had to suffer for his action in
this affair. He has now been out of employment eight months,
compelled to resign after 31 years' service under the same
employers. As a Socialist, Houston clearly comprehended
the dangers his action would lead him into, and therefore for
years he smothered his indignation, until at least his family
had grown up. Once his duty towards them fulfilled, he risked
his all to save the health of many of his class from disease
and death. How can we refrain from admiration of the courage
of one who so nobly plunged into the ranks of the enemy
single-handed to rescue his dying comrades?

After the complaint made on 4th September, as above narrated,
fourteen cow-fleshers went to Houston's employer to seek his
dismissal. They failed. They then requisitioned the Fleshers'
Association to call a meeting for the boycott of Houston's firm. The secretary, a local lawyer, warned them that Houston would raise an action against them if this were done. Again foiled, they
persuaded the fleshers individually to boycott Houston, but without success. Undeterred, they next plotted to get Houston imprisoned for theft. On 23rd May, 1907, two detectives asked him to lead them to his office, as they desired to examine it. They produced a warrant empowering them to break it open if need be. Accordingly he yielded. On the road the detectives admitted that four master fleshers were responsible for the investigation. Sure enough some stuff was found hidden away under a desk. It was taken to the police station, and a notice of prosecution was served out to Houston. The
police authorities soon perceived that it was a crudely-designed
conspiracy, and let the matter drop. Robert King and John Gordon (who was recently fined) interviewed the Superintendent and the Fiscal, but both refused to prosecute. Thereupon Mr. Banks visited Houston's employer to tell him about the dishonesty of his Greenock employee, but his visit proved a failure. A last attempt was made. Ramsey does a large trade over Scotland, so all the cow-fleshers were got to boycott him. This had the desired effect, and the unfortunate Mr. Houston was asked to resign. Here are his exact words:--"Owing to the misunderstandings which have arisen in my management of your business here, and the actions of certain parties therein concerned, I now resign the position which I have held in your employment.
"23rd July, 1907."

Shortly afterwards a testimonial was raised to requite Mr.
Houston for the valuable services rendered by him. Again, his
enemies were active to prevent the success of the testimonial, for
they visited probable subscribers and represented him as a thief,
an Anarchist, and a Socialist, who made himself a nuisance at
Liberal meetings for the sake of notoriety, and not for the good
of the people. However, a goodly number of appreciative citizens were found, and a meeting arranged for the occasion. He received a purse of sovereigns, a gold badge, and a silver-mounted biscuit box for his wife.

The following inscription is engraved on the
badge:--"Presented to Mr. James Houston, along with a purse of
sovereigns, and a silver-mounted biscuit box to Mrs. Houston,
by many friends, for recognition of valuable services rendered
to the community in exposing the base methods of meat
inspection in Greenock Slaughter-House.--20th September,
1907."

Mr. Houston is very proud of this generous recognition of his
services by those who have appreciated what he has sacrificed in
acting as he has done. But he cannot but feel miserable, now that he has been unemployed for so long. Ought this to be, whilst Mr. Ballantine, the guilty Meat Inspector, is earning at least £2 per week by selling fodder for the cattle in the Slaughter-House? Why should the guilty one enjoy such a great privilege, while the innocent one must suffer the worries of unemployment, and the fears and forebodings accompanying the prospect of immediate financial ruin.

The purpose of this pamphlet will not have been
completely accomplished until such times as the citizens of
Greenock recognise
in a more tangible form the respect they owe to one who so unselfishly sacrificed himself in the best interests of his fellow-beings. Without delay the Corporation of Greenock ought to provide him with a comfortable and well-remunerated position. If the Governments can and do reward the outstanding generals, admirals,
and statesmen, for their supposed great services to the nation,
surely Greenock is not so base and mean as to let suffer one who
has nobly done his duty to the community at large.

We hope that the people will, with determination, agitate
until this modicum of justice has been rendered to one so worthy
of it. Those who have reduced him to the position he is in
to-day, will certainly exert themselves to the uttermost to prevent
him from making an honourable livelihood under the Corporation, or under a private employer, but if the class-conscious Trade Unionists and Socialists, who know the realities of victimisation, stand solid and steadfastly press forward the claims of Houston, nothing can prevent success. This is a subject for the Trades' Council, if ever there was one. It is to be hoped that someone will take the initiative and carry to success the negotiations obligatory under the conditions. For a certainty we Socialists have made up our minds that the matter is going to be fought out until victory is ours. Houston's unscrupulous enemies shall very soon regret the dastardly attack they have made on him, for if he is not placed in a position of financial security, we will single out individuals amongst them and treat them with their own methods of attack in an intensified form. They have money to lose; we have none!